... We can't expect the honeymoon with Iran to last for ever... not without actually doing something constructive.

And that is all you offer in your thread about the honeymoon…

I can't agree with that. Before you asked your question about the Iran pipeline I gave credit to Celandine who had already de-coded my post with reference to a BBC report that explained it. I also offered suggestions for constructive steps that I believed were necessary for normal relations with Iran:

"I would suggest:

- Israel and US to give up nukes and accept international provision of fuel for nuclear power;

- US to stop arming Israel;

- US to withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq;

- Israel and US to stop threatening Iran."

Normally I would answer any sensible question that stands to enlighten the thread and can only apologise if I gave the impression of being dismissive of yours. Looking back I probably concluded that the question had been answered in advance by the two posts I have mentioned.

Well, it's a small deal in Afghanistan but a big deal in the West... which is why we shouldn't be fighting for it.

Even though you claim this is an answer, to me it is not!

Yes, it's an answer. His claim that I didn't state my personal morality, not that he's entitled to it, is entirely bogus because to say of wife-starving that "we shouldn't be fighting for it" is to express a subjective judgment.

Quote:

As far as i know you could be an Afghan national with an English Law education from a London university, i dont know you.

I only expect my posts to be considered on merit.

Quote:

don't pretend the answer is obvious when it's not.

I'm saying that the answer is obvious when it is. If I object to troops putting their lives on the line to protect a person promoting sexual slavery it's obvious I'm opposed to sexual slavery - yes?

Quote:

You're just saying that it depends on the point of view.

Not really, I've raised legal objections to sexual slavery in the thread - Statute of Rome

Quote:

And that's what we are seeking, YOUR point of view.

My point of view, expressed in the thread, is that British soldiers should not be dying to defend perpetrators of sexual slavery whom we have a duty to arrest and prosecute under international law. I believe that's been clear all the way through.

You can't agree that that was all you mentioned about The Honeymoon…? Where else do you mention The Honeymoon…?

Instead of being dismissive to my question, when i asked —then and now—, if the pipeline article was what you meant, you should have said: "No", since the article about the pipelines was not what you meant.

About the other article you say to Celandine: "That's interesting - I hadn't seen that one.". So that article wasn't really the one you implied in the original post, even though you now credit that: "… Celandine […] had already de-coded my post with reference to a BBC report that explained it.".

OK.…

Thanks for acknowledging my contribution. I had come upon another article —about supposed talks with US that would allow Iranian nuclear refinement— which i then thought could be the honeymoon you where refering to. Apparently you're not telling and you'll ignore that detail about your original post.

Everywhere. The honeymoon refers to a period of relatively good relations between the US and Iran so my four suggestions were offered as formula for prolonging it.

Quote:

if the pipeline article was what you meant, you should have said: "No", since the article about the pipelines was not what you meant.

What?

Quote:

About the other article you say to Celandine: "That's interesting - I hadn't seen that one.". So that article wasn't really the one you implied in the original post, even though you now credit that: "… Celandine […] had already de-coded my post with reference to a BBC report that explained it.".

There are two separate articles, one I'd seen and one I hadn't seen. The one I'd seen which rumbled my post was about Hilary in which she is quoted as saying that US engagement was 'not indefinite'. The one I hadn't seen was about Obama.

Quote:

which i then thought could be the honeymoon you where refering to. Apparently you're not telling and you'll ignore that detail about your original post.

The honeymoon I'm referring to is the one Iran is willing to engage upon with the West. My post was saying that we can't expect them to stay engaged forever unless we take constructive steps to allay their concerns - I think that's clear from everything I said in the thread.

Instead of being dismissive toof my question, when i asked —then and now—,the one asking if the pipeline article was what you meant, you should have saidanswered: "No.", since the article about the pipelines was not whatthe honeymoon that you meant.

Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.

All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.